Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Anderson
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish
Rule in the Philippines
J. GAYO ARAGON, O.P.
This recourse was in keeping with the prevailing view among jurists and
theologians of the time, believing that the pope was universal lord of the
world, whose authority extended to the Christians and that he could
therefore, in a given case, appropriate, transfer, and assign, quite legally,
political dominion over their lands to Christian princes. Spain could,
therefore, legally acquire sovereignty over an inhabited territory in one of
four ways, namely: (1) heredity, (2) voluntary choice of the inhabitants, (3)
marriage to an heiress of the realm, or (4) pontifical or imperial grant.
Obviously, in the case of the lands discovered by Columbus, provisions one
and three did not apply.7 Of the remaining alternatives, the Spanish
monarchs chose to assuage their conscience by the most convenient means
possible – an outright pontifical grant. Their royal request was approved
with the issuance of the papal bull "Inter caetera," dated May 34, 1493. But
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 1
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
what was the precise meaning and scope of the grant? Did it really entail
political sovereignty or was it simply a special commission to spread the
gospel?8 This was an issue of continuing controversy that occupied the royal
attention throughout the sixteenth century.
For those brought up in the English tradition, the considerable attention
devoted by the Spaniards to the study of the legal grounds for their rule over
the New World might seem excessive, even extraordinary. For Spaniards,
however, the legal justification of their king's authority over the Indies
remained a burning issue, as indicated, virtually throughout the sixteenth
century. This is all the more striking in view of the mood of the times, when
blind obedience was accorded absolute rulers, and excessive homage was
paid to the socalled superiority of certain races over others.
In spite of this, it was the eminently theological culture of Spain, where
the principles of Catholicism were an ingredient of everyday life, that caused
the king to seek to justify before his people and to his own self the dominion
he held over the newly found territories.
This bizarre attitude of the Spaniards could not have been initiated had
there not existed an ample, if regulated, freedom of expression, both oral
and written, encouraged by the kings themselves. This explains, for
instance, why the Dominican las Casas, for all his open denunciations, was
never prosecuted or imprisoned as a traitor to the king.9
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 2
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
At that stage, therefore, the only legitimate title to justifying Spain's rule
in the New World territories would have been that flowing from the consent
of the natives deliberately and freely given.12 Upon royal instructions,
attempts to obtain such consent were made by the Dominicans in VeraPaz,
Yucatan, and other parts of New Spain.13 The results were encouraging and
fruitful. The same concerns were to be extended to the Philippines, as soon
in the instructions given the adelantado Miguel Lopez de Legazpi.14 That is
why as early as 1599 Governor Francisco Tello de Guzman of the Philippines
could write to His Majesty: “When these islands were conquered and
subjected, they were placed in obedience to your Majesty with just as many
requirements as the other parts of the Indies.”15 Perhaps facts such as these
have moved some writers to suggest that, unlike in the Americas, there was
in the Philippines during the Spanish rule no need to reiterate the laws
protecting the natives, for want of any dispute between the factions that
might have been involved, and because there was scarcely a trace of
organized opposition on the part of the clergy.16
This, however, was not the case. The moment they were in a position to
do so, the Augustinian friars, led by Father Andres de Urdaneta, voiced
their opposition to Spanish dominion over the Philippines. They did not even
want Legazpi's expedition to sail for the Philippines. Father Urdaneta had
already persuaded Velasco, the viceroy of Mexico, and had written to Philip
II, that Spain could not legitimately attempt the conquest of the Philippines,
if only because the islands were within the zone granted by Charles V to the
crown of Portugal.17 The other Augustinians who had joined the Legazpi
expedition – already on the high seas when finally told of their destination,
which was not to be the Moluccas as proposed by Father Urdaneta – sided
with him in condemning what seemed to them an underhanded ruse. For
this reason, when they reached the Philippines, they deliberately refrained
from commenting in any way (and Legazpi expressly sought their opinion)
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 3
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
on whether or not it seemed right to settle on any of the islands visited. 18
The Augustinians next proceeded to write a series of reports to the king,
underlining the unfavorable aspect of events in the Philippines, urging that
they be remedied without delay. Upon Legazpi's death on August 20, 1572,
and the transfer of command of the islands to Governor Guido de Lavezaris,
the accusations made by the religious turned more strident and vitriolic.
Moreover, they agreed to send Father Diego de Herrera to discuss with the
Spanish monarch the evils and abusive practices in the Philippines.
Alarmed by this decision, the government authorities asked the religious to
submit a formal account of their opinion on the matter. This was done by the
Augustinian provincial, Father Martin de Rada, who took the precaution of
sending a copy of his report to the viceroy of Mexico.19
The opinion of the religious can be outlined in this syllogism: The islands
now under Spanish rule are in this state solely by reason of war. This war,
from whichever angle it may be considered, was unjust. Therefore, the
islands were unjustly conquered.
The major premise can be accepted as being historically correct, in large
measure. Thus, on May 28, 1595, royal officials wrote to His Majesty: “From
the day we arrived to this moment we have found no ally within this
archipelago . . . in no part would they receive us as friends or credit anything
that we wished to discuss with them.”21 Of course, proper allowances must
be made for such a sweeping statement, considering for instance Humabon's
friendly dealings with Magellan in Cebu, which had been preceded by
equally amicable relations between Magellan and the natives of Homophone,
Butuan, and Limasawa, particularly Rajahs Kolambu and Siagu,22 as well
as Legazpi's friendship with Leyte's ruler, Malitic, Bohol's Sikatuna, and
Dapitan's Pagbuaya, let alone Cebu's Tupas, and later the Manila and
Tondo rulers, Matanda and Lakandula and Soliman.23
In regard to the minor premise, the conditions for a just war must be
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 4
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
considered. These, as defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas, are legal authority,
just cause, and right intention. The absence of any one of these would render
the war unjust.
Father Rada asserted that no governor or captain could validly engage in
war without an express authorization from the king. He added that in none
of his dispatches had the Spanish sovereign authorized any declaration of
war against the natives. On the contrary, in a letter from El Escorial, the
king had expressly declared that any attempt to conquer these islands by
force would be unjust, even though there be cause for it.24 To what degree
was Father Rada accurate his interpretation? In a letter to Legazpi the king
had written, "You shall so carry yourself that you may not come to blows
with them nor with any other persons unless you should be provoked, and in
your own defense." 26 The king, therefore, had not ruled out a war of self
defense, nor could he have done so justly, for such was any man's natural
right, whether subject or prince.
The mind of Philip II on this matter is best understood by reading the
pertinent injunctions given Miguel Lopez de Legazpi to the effect that once
the Spaniards had chosen the most t able place for their settlement, far from
anywhere already occupied by the natives, they should endeavor to secure
their friendship by peaceful means, encourage them to live in communities,
defend them against their enemies, teach them a civilized way of life, and
convert them to the Catholic faith and the Christian religion.28 And he
added that should the natives continue to resist all attempts by the
Spaniards to settle amongst them, it should be pointed out to them three
times by a duly authorized representative that the Spaniards intend neither
to harm them nor to deprive them of their lands, but only to befriend them
and teach them the ways of civilization, bringing them the knowledge of God
and the law of Christ by whom they have been redeemed like all other men.
If the natives still remained adamant , then the Spaniards could settle,
regardless, causing them no harm beyond that necessary in defense of self
and settlement. Once this was done, the religious should try to communicate
with the natives, to win their friendship and make them understand the
Spanish intentions. If there were further opposition to the preaching of the
“Word,” then a report on the matter, duly documented and endorsed, should
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 5
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
The question arises, Did the conquistadores carry out the instructions
from their king? If they did, then any war they might have undertaken
would have been supported with valid authorization and just cause. But the
religious held that on no occasion were the royal instructions followed. On
the contrary, everywhere it was demanded of the natives that they should
submit to the Spaniards and pay tribute if they wished to avoid war. No
mention was made either of God or of the good purposes of the king. The
religious added that many a pretext had been fabricated to seek to justify
the subjection of the natives through violence.
In summarizing the views of his confreres, Father Rada alleged, “All the
more unjust are these conquests since in none, or almost none, of them has
there been any cause.”27
In September 1581, Msgr. Domingo de Salazar, O.P., the first bishop of
the islands, arrived in Manila.28 It was during his time and on his initiative
that an assembly of sorts was convened in 1582, on the lines of a council, “to
deal with matters concerning the furthering of the Faith and the
justification of past and future conquests by Spain.”29
In the records of the proceedings of this “Synod,” one chapter is devoted
to the legal right of Castille over the territory of the Philippines. It begins
with the statement that the kings of Castille “do not possess the Philippines
by right of inheritance or through a just war.” Having dismissed these
grounds pertaining to natural law, how did the fathers of the council face the
problem from the supernatural angle? They did so through a series of simple
syllogisms, such as: “The captains, soldiers, governors and justices have no
more right over these lands than that granted them by their king. And the
king gave them no more than he, in turn might derive from Christ, which is
the power to send those who would preach the gospel throughout the world,
not to deprive anyone of what is his.” The obvious conclusion was that the
sole right enjoyed by these officials was that of preaching the gospel and not
dispossessing any man of what was his.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 6
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
This right, the council believed, entailed that of assigning soldiers to
protect the preachers and those recently converted and, in those lands, to
undertake whatever might be necessary for the temporal government with a
view to this spiritual end. This calls to mind the three legitimate rights
upheld by Father Vitoria: freedom to preach the gospel, the right of the new
converts to adequate protection, and the right of the pope to depose pagan
rulers when necessary for the preservation of the Catholic faith. The
religious insisted, however, that the right to preach the gospel did not
include that of political and military conquest of the lands being
evangelized, since the gospel deprived no one of whatever was his by natural
right, nor had the pope or king any right to so dispossess him.
Applying this formula to the case of the Philippines, the fathers of the
council came to the conclusion that if the gospel were preached in places so
well governed that there be no question of depriving the natives of their self
rule in order to establish the faith; if the people were so disposed and able to
accept the demands of an intrinsically spiritual order; and finally, if the
preaching of the gospel were in no way hindered, then they may not be
deprived of their lands or of the right to rule themselves.” After lengthy
deliberation, the fathers of the council finished by advancing this hybrid
definition of justification, which combined the right to evangelize and the
unsophisticated condition of the natives. This position is not hard to
understand because the council fathers had to assuage the troubled
conscience of the missionaries. As the religious alleged, in the Philippines
there was no real opposition to evangelization, for the known cases of
hostility had arisen from the failure of the Spaniards to inform the natives
of the real intentions of the king. Hence, the need to resort to a sufficiently
allembracing definition, provisional in character, to ratify the fait accompli.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 7
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
the ruler of that state, namely, the pope, without ceasing to be subject to
their own native rulers. In certain respects the pope had delegated to kings
his spiritual powers over Christians in lands entrusted to the latter by the
pontiff himself. By virtue of this delegation, kings could and ought to
promulgate the laws necessary for the protection and exercise of the rights
of their subjects as Christians. It was the duty of the native rulers to
promote and support these laws, in this sense considering themselves
subjects of the kings of Spain.
In the Philippines these conditions did not obtain in fact, for nowhere
could natives be found who might be entrusted with the political authority
that would adequately see to the interests of the faith and of the recent
converts. For this reason the King of Spain could be said to have not only
that “quasiimperial authority,” but also the right to political governance of
the Philippines. Nevertheless, the fathers of the council decreed that “the
Viceroy or Governor is in conscience bound to appoint native judges and
governors in places that are already peaceably settled. It is equally binding
upon the King to see that this is accomplished.”
In conclusion, the fathers of the council were of the opinion that no valid
claim could be laid to the conquest of the Philippines other than that based
on the right to preach the gospel, with the qualifying clauses mentioned
above. But for this right to justify possession of territories, it was
unnecessary to depend on any direct opposition of the natives to the
preaching of the gospel, since the inferior or primitive organization of their
government and of their laws as would hinder or thwart their conversion
was, in itself, sufficient reason.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 8
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
and legal execution.”30
Notwithstanding the generous reception given by the king to the petitions
of the council, other problems continued to arise, principally that concerning
the collection of tribute. This only served to quicken the doubts of Bishop
Salazar, who felt the need for colleagues of similar convictions to support
him in his struggle to introduce a state of political life based on solid
principles. He found them in the Dominicans who arrived in Manila in
1587.31
They did indeed influence him, but rather in the sense of bringing him
back to the Dominican tradition that was unwavering on questions of this
nature.
The problem of collecting tribute raised once more the question of the
authority of the Spanish king over the natives of the Philippines. This was
inevitable, since the solution to the first depended upon that given to the
latter.
On this point the opinion of the Jesuits can be summarized thus. The
right of the Spanish sovereigns to rule the new territories was based, in the
first place, on the natural right to help the needy and protect the innocent.
Upon this basis Pope Alexander VI made the King of Spain supreme ruler of
these people to advance the spread of the gospel. But what authority did the
pope have over pagan lands as far as safeguarding evangelization was
concerned? Directly, of course, he had none, but indirectly be could intervene
in the affairs of pagan nations when necessary for the exercise of the right to
defend the innocent and to preach the gospel. The same indirect authority
rested with the king and, by papal concession, was restricted solely to him to
avoid friction and confusion in the new lands. Both the pope and the King of
Spain could exercise this indirect authority in three cases, namely, should
the preaching of the gospel be hindered by these peoples; when there was a
probability that the maintenance of Christianity in their lands could not be
entrusted to them; and when, in the opinion of learned and virtuous
persons, the preaching of the gospel could not be carried out in safety but on
the contrary, there was danger that it cease altogether. Consequently, the
king might acquire no authority over these peoples without first
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 9
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
ascertaining the existence of these conditions. Moreover, once the natives
had been converted, the king would acquire added justification to continue
his rule over them based on the natural right to be protected in their new
faith.32 The Augustinians saw in the pontifical grant the justification for
Spanish rule over the Philippines. By divine and evangelical law the
supreme pontiffs had been entrusted with the proclamation and spread of
the gospel throughout the world. Since they were unable to do this
personally everywhere, much less in remote places, who could doubt that
they might or even ought to entrust this care and task to one who was able
to attend to it with less hindrance and greater means. Inasmuch as the
discovery of the East and West Indies had been achieved through the
intervention and at the expense of Spain and her sovereign, the popes,
particularly Alexander VI, had good cause to delegate to the King of Spain
the evangelization and conversion of the Indies, and the governance and
protection of those converted.33
The Franciscans, for their part, were concise in their opinion. They
simply assumed the validity of the king's authority over these islands, based
on his mission of having the gospel preached, entrusted to him by the popes,
so that the king's sovereignty over these islands rested on the spiritual well
being that he dispensed to the people.34
The opinion of Bishop Salazar, on the other hand, may be gathered from
his brief “Resolution,”35 as well as from his tract on the collection of tribute
from the pagans in the Philippines.36 The Dominican prelate began by
distinguishing between two orders or kinds of rule, political or temporal, and
spiritual or supernatural. The former, he believed, proceeds from God
through the choice made by the subjects and is destined to keep them in
peace and justice while the latter, which derives from Christ and was
delegated to Saint Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome, is ordained
to the teaching of the true and salutary doctrine that would lead men to
eternal salvation.
Only in one of these two ways, he continued, could the King of Spain rule
these lands: the political or temporal authority of the king might have
originated either when the Spaniards, first reached the Philippines, or after
they had settled there. In either case, to be valid, he said, it must be founded
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 10
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
either on popular choice or upon a just war. But, in the case of popular
choice, the following conditions had to be fulfilled: first, that all the natives,
or at least a majority, should have chosen the King of Spain for their ruler –
thus becoming his subjects. If originally they had their own rulers, these too
should have expressed their consent to the decision. A choice made either by
the natives or by their rulers alone would not have sufficed; it had to be a
joint action. Moreover, this decision must have been made freely, without the
intervention of fear, force, pain, or ignorance. Failure in any one of these
conditions would invalidate the king's rule.
Bishop Salazar next dealt with the jurisdiction of the church over pagans.
He brought forth the same distinctions established by the Dominican
theologian Cayetano. There are those, he said, who are de facto and de jure
subject to the church, namely: (1) those residing in the papal estates; the
pope may rule them, except in matters relating purely to divine positive law
or ecclesiastical law; (2) those who are legally but not de facto subject to the
church, such as the pagans living in lands unjustly withheld by them
against their lawful Christian rulers; in this case, the latter may validly
declare war on such pagans as unjust aggressors; (3) lastly, those not subject
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 11
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
either de facto or de jure to the church. Those in the third group, he argued,
are not hostile to Christians nor do they occupy lands once belonging to the
church or to Christian princes; they are the owners and the lawful rulers of
their territories, just as the Spaniards are of theirs. The church has
authority over them, he said, only to the extent that, through the preaching
of the gospel, she attempts to bring them to knowledge of the truth; thus,
unless they hinder the preaching of the gospel or are totally opposed to it, or
their attitude toward Christians proves destructive and malicious, neither
the church nor the Christian princes have any cause for a just war against
them. The pagans of the Philippines were to be classified in this third
category.
For his part, Father Miguel de Benavides, O.P., later third Archbishop of
Manila, also discussed these points, basically agreeing with the views of
Bishop Salazar.37 Commenting in greater detail on the authority of the King
of Spain over the natives of the Philippines, he maintained that the Spanish
monarch could not deprive the native rulers converted to Christianity of
their rule and dominion over their own people, but instead should keep them
in their position, just as their followers should remain their subjects. This
did not conflict with the supreme quasiimperial authority of the Spanish
king emanating from the papal grant over the Christian native rulers in
regard to the defense and promotion of the Catholic faith.
In this vein, Benavides continued, the King of Spain may, by virtue of
such authority, release Christian natives from their subjection and
allegiance to pagan rulers. Father Benavides, however, true to the orthodox
doctrine on the matter, warned against universal and indiscriminate
exercise of this right. Rather, following Saint Thomas, he insisted that each
case should be carefully studied and weighed, because, he said, the right of
the native rulers over their people is obvious in the light of natural law,
while the right to overthrow them is not always seen clearly under the
existing facts; the native rulers are, therefore, to be given the benefit of the
doubt, since valid authority is presumed to be in their favor. Father
Benavides claimed, however, that this was not the problem in the
Philippines where conversion to the faith had always started with the native
rulers.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 12
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
Finally, Benavides categorically denied that the King of Spain had any
authority over the pagan natives. His reasoning was concise and convincing:
the pope has authority over his own subjects, i.e., Christians; the only way to
belong to the society ruled by the supreme pontiff is through baptism; since
pagans are still unbaptized they remain beyond the power of the pope – in
this respect the King of Spain had no authority other than that granted him
by the pope, and, consequently, providing pagans with preachers of the
gospel did not give the king any right to rule over them. It is true, Benavides
maintained, that all men are in duty bound to profess the religion of Christ
and to acknowledge His Vicar, the pope, as the universal sovereign in
matters spiritual, but it is also true that no man may be forced to receive the
faith and to recognize Christ either by law or through social pressure. Thus,
he argued, neither may they be forced to accept the pope as Christ's vicar
nor the King of Spain as vicar delegate.
The King of Spain, on the other hand, could not have acquired the
Philippines as the result of a just war, said Benavides, since the natives
here, in their own lands which had at no time belonged to any Christian
prince, had not hindered or prevented the preaching of the gospel. No just
cause for war had existed. Nor had the natives' free submission to the king's
rule been duly sought.
For Salazar and Benavides the King of Spain had yet to become the
political sovereign of the Philippines; his only authority was as an
instrument of the spiritual power of the pope, directly so over the Christians
and indirectly over the pagans. While Salazar merely rejected the legitimacy
of the Spanish dominion over the Philippines, Father Benavides suggested a
means of vindicating it. He proposed that the king should send religious and
secular clergy to convert the natives in justice and charity, while leaving
them to rule themselves. In this way the natives were likely to choose freely
to become subjects of the King of Spain even before becoming Christians.
The natives should be attracted to the Spaniards through friendship, so that
they might eventually decide, of their own volition, to accept the rule of the
Spanish monarch. From what has been said, it is clear that there was a
divergence of opinion among the religious in the Philippines on the temporal
or political authority of the Spanish king over the islands. The Augustinians
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 13
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
and Jesuits maintained the legitimacy of this dominion, based on the papal
concession and the opposition of the natives to the preaching of the gospel.
The Dominicans, led by Bishop Salazar, rejected this legitimacy as
insufficiently established according to law.
This matter was at length taken up by the royal council of the Indies.
Governor Gomez Perez Dasmarinas sent to this council all the relevant
documents supporting the royal claim, and also Father Francisco Ortega,
whom he instructed to oppose the view advanced by the Bishop of Manila.38
Bishop Salazar, then aged 78, also left for Spain to defend in person his
opinion before Philip II, taking with him Father Miguel de Benavides.39
Bishop Salazar died on December 14, 1594, at the age of 82. Father
Benavides then took the matter into his own hands, determined that the
royal decisions should be reversed. He prepared a new study of the whole
affair and submitted his views in writing to Philip II, who hastened to
convene the Council of the Indies, instructing its members to hold sessions
without respite so that a decision might be reached before Benavides left the
country. On October 17, 1596, the council signed a declaration, later
endorsed by the king, favorable to the stand of Father Benavides. On
February 8, 1597, Philip II issued a decree ordering the governorgeneral of
the Philippines to call together the authorities of the Islands to determine
ways and means, first, to restore tribute unjustly collected from pagan
natives, over whom the king had no legal power, and, second, to obtain,
without coercion, ratification of the natives' submission to the Spanish
sovereign who, in his own words, had been convinced by Father Benavides
that he should cherish submission of his subjects only when voluntarily
given. 40
In 1598, Benavides (by then, bishopelect of Nueva Segovia) returned to
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 14
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
Manila, bringing along with him this unprecedented cedula. In pursuance
thereof, on August 4 of the same year, the governorgeneral convened the
council proposed by the king. All the authorities present at the meeting
pledged to comply with the royal wish. The next day, the cedula was publicly
proclaimed by Francisco Pos, Manila official town crier, before a huge
crowd.41
Soon thereafter, in the various dioceses of the country, public meetings
were held at the town square, with the native residents, led by their
chieftains, attending. Once the cedula terms were made known to them in
their own dialects, they were asked whether they freely chose to submit to
the sovereignty of the King of Spain over them. The results were
overwhelmingly favorable, even if in some instances reservations and
conditions were attached. On July 12, 1599, Governor Tello de Guzman
could already inform His Majesty, among other things, “that measures have
been taken for the execution of the royal decree brought by the Bishop of
Nueva Segovia in regard to rendering submission.... In the province of
Ilocos, in the diocese of the Bishop of Nueva Segovia, this was very well
done; and submission was rendered to Your Majesty. Likewise the whole
district of Manila, missionary territory of the Augustinian Fathers, has
rendered submission. La Laguna, in the care of the Franciscan Fathers, has
not so readily yielded, for the natives there have asked for a year in which to
reply. . . . Something similar has happened in other provinces.”42 Again, in
some sectors of Pangasinan, it was agreed that the natives would accept
Spanish rule with the understanding that they receive due redress for the
abuses committed by the alcaldes mayor's and encomenderos and that the
tribute hitherto unlawfully collected from them be returned.43
In due time, it can be surmised, nearly all the other regions and
provinces of the Philippines gave their free consent to the supreme authority
over them of the King of Spain. This can be gathered from the invariable
conduct observed by the Spanish government in its rule over the islands. An
example is the submission freely given by the natives of the Batanes Islands
on June 1, 1782, upon being publicly convened and, through the interpreters,
Pedro Paturayan and Marcos Buiz, told of the message of GovernorGeneral
Jose Basco issued in Manila on February 15 of the same year. 44 There is
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 15
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
also the free consent given in 1845 by the different chieftains of Basilan
Island in Mindanao, who were contacted by the governor of Zamboanga
upon instructions to that effect given him by the then GovernorGeneral
Narciso de Claveria. It is noteworthy that, in a later communication to the
central government in Spain, Governor Claveria corrected the earlier
erroneous information that Dato Usuk and the people of the Maluso region,
in the said island had given their consent. Governor Claveria made it clear
that such had not been the case, so the government was to refrain from
exercising any sovereignty over them.46 Such was the scrupulousness with
which this matter of free consent was regarded by Spain. Even as late as
1881 the same criterion would be followed by the Spanish government. Thus,
desirous of incorporating the northern Luzon provinces into the territories
under the rule of Spain, GovernorGeneral Primo de Rivera, on January 14,
1881, issued a decree appealing to all the Filipino Igorots to accept the rule
of the Spaniards, under pain of being forcibly subdued should they fail to do
so within a given time period. Although quite a number of them heeded the
call, many more refused to do so, whereupon a punitive expedition was sent
against them. The government troops were successful, and the governor
general elatedly informed the home government. But, in reply, Governor
General Primo de Rivera was ordered from Madrid to stop immediately all
such expeditions, for they were deemed “in violation of the existing laws that
did not allow illtreatment of the Filipinos nor their forcible submission to
Spanish sovereignty.” The governorgeneral faithfully complied with the
instructions, and it was left to the missionaries to achieve the government's
purposes through persuasion and conversion.46
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 16
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
In light of all this, it is therefore truly amazing that a king, on whose
empire the sun never set, should have evinced such an unswerving
determination to seek the free acceptance of his dominion over a people
whom he had ruled as subjects for more than thirty years. This, in large
measure, was no doubt due to the alert and lively passion for justice and
fairness of those early missionariesmen for whom the rights of God and of
God's children were more deeply embedded in their hearts and minds than
the aweinspiring majesty of crown and throne.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 17
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
Notes
1. Lewis Hanke, Las Teorias Politicos de Bartolome de las Caws (Buenos Aires,
1935), p. 9, note 1.
2. Los Codigos Epsilon's Concordats y Annotates, III: Codigo de las Siete Partidas
(Madrid, 1848), II, 34445.
3. “Carta de Cristobal Colon al Escribano . . . Luis de Santangel .. 15 de febrero
de 1493,” in Martin Fernandez de Navarrete, Coleccion de Viajes (Madrid, 18.37), I,
314.
4. E. Nys, Les Origines du Droit International (Brussels, 1894), p. 368.
5. Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos en las Islas y Tierra Firme del
Mar Oceano (Madrid, 1934), I, First Decade, Bk. II, chap. iv, p.137.
6. Pedro Leturia, S.J., Las Grandes Bulas Misionales de Alejandro VI, 1493, in
Bibliotheca Hispana Missionum (Barcelona, 1930), p. 213.
7. Partida II, Tit. I, Law 9, in Los Codigos Espanoles, op. cit., p. 328.
8. Juan de Solorzano, Politica Indiana (Antwerp, 1703), Bk. I, chap. ii, p. 26.
9. Lewis Hanke, Bartolome de las Casas (Havana, 1949), p. 48.
10. Coleccion de Libros ... referentes a la Historia del Peru, IV, 95ff; vid., R.
Levillier, D. Francisco de Toledo, I.
11. See also: Rubén Vargas Ugarte, S.J., "Fray Francisco de Vitoria," Boletin del
Instituto de Investigaciones Historicas (Buenos Aires, 1930), no. 45, p. 30, note; and
Alfonso Garcia Gallo, "Un antecedente de la Doctrina Espanola de la Guerra," in
Anuario de Historia del Derecho Espanol, II, 15.
12. Documentos Ineditos del Siglo XVI para la Historia de Mexico ( Mexico, 1914),
p. 176.
13. Alonso de Zorita, Historia de la Nueva Espana (Madrid, igog), p. 278.
14. See “Instructions to Legazpi; Mexico, September 1, 1564,” Emma Helen Blair
and James Alexander Robertson, eds., The Philippine Islands, 14931898 (55 vols.;
Cleveland, 19031909), II, 8999 (hereinafter cited as BRPI ).
15. Gov. Francisco Tello de Guzman, “Letter to the King; Manila, July 12, 1599,”
BRPI, X, 25355.
16. Albert Keller, Colonization (New York, 1908 ).
17. Fr. Andres de Urdaneta, O.S.A., "Letter to Philip II, May 28, 1560," cited by Fr.
Fermin Urcilla, Urdaneta y la Conquista de Filipinas (San Sebastian, 1907 ), p. i88, note
1.
18. Urcilla, op. cit., p. 195, note 1, and p. 222, note 1.
19 "Augustinian Memoranda," BRPI, XXXIV, 273.
20 "Opinion of Fray Martin de Rada on Tribute from the Indians, June 21, 1574,"
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 18
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
BRPI, III, 254.
21 Pedro Torres y Lanzas, Catalogo de los Documentos relativos a las Islas
Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Sevilla (Barcelona, 19281936), I,
cclxxxiii.
22. Antonio Pigafetta, Primer Viaje Alrededor del Mundo, trans. by Carlos Amoretti,
annotated by Manuel Walls y Merino (Madrid, i8gg ), pp. 27 ff.; also Primer Viaje en
Torno del Globo, Austral edition (Mexico, 1954), Bk. II, pp. 6162, 6566 ff.
23. José Montero Vidal, Historia General de Filipinas (Madrid, 1897), chap. iii, pp.
3132; Francisco Combes, S.J., Historia de Mindanao y Jolo (Madrid, i887), Retana
Pastells, ed. (Madrid, 1897), I, Bks. I and II, chap. i, col. 78, note 35; col. 662; also chap.
ii, cols. 8587; and chap. x, cols. 34g8. Francisco Colin, S.J., Labor evangelica, Pablo
Pastells, ed. (2nd ed., 3 vols.; Barcelona, 19001902), I, Bk. I, chap. xxii, p. 154.
24. BRPI, III, 254. 25. BRPI, XXXIV, 235.
26. Ibid., pp. 25253. 27. BRPI, III, 254.
28. Jose de Alcazar, Historia de los Dominios Espanoles en Oceania: Filipinas
(Madrid, 1897), pp. 6465.
29. Suma de una Junta que se hizo a manera de Concilio el ano de 1582, para dar
asiento a las cosas tocantes al aumento de la fe y justificacion de las conquistas hechas
y que en adelante se hicieren por los espanoles, Bk. I, chap. i; Dominican Archives,
Manila, MSS. Vol. CCLXXXII, fols. 12375, and Vol LXX, pp. 13086. Also Archives,
University of Santo Tomas, Manlla, B. nos. 14 and 15. All quotations of the Synod are
taken from this source; translation, ours.
30. Msgr. Domingo de Salazar, O.P., "Letter to Philip II, June i8, 1583," In Colin,
op. cit., I, 312.
31. Alcazar, op. cit., p. 81; Colin, op. cit., I, Bk. I, chap. viii, p. 357, note.
32. Colin, op. cit., I, 59398.
33. Parecer de los Padres Agustinos, Archivo General de Indias (Seville);
Expediente: Filipinas, no. 74, 68I32.
34. Opiniones de las Distintas Religiones de Filipinas acerca de los Tributos
(Manila, February 15 and z3, 1591 ), Archivo General de Indias (Seville), Seccion V,
Audiencia de Filipinas, Legajo 74, Ramo 2, cat. 3767.
35. Msgr. Domingo de Salazar, O.P., Resolucion Breve del Obpo. de las Islas
Filipinas (Manila, January i8, 1591 ), Archivo General de Indias (Seville), Seccion V,
Audiencia de Filipinas, Legajo 74, Ramo 2, cat. 3751.
38. Cf. Lewis Hanke, Cuerpo de Documentos del Siglo XVI (Mexico, 1943), pp. 118
ff.
37. See: J. Gayo Aragon, "Introduccion al `Trotted Segundo de la Predicacion
evangelica y de el modo de Predicar el Santo Evangelio' del P. Miguel de Benavides,
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 19
STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY Edited by Gerald H. Anderson
O.P.," Unitas (Manila), XXII, 3 (1949)), 60149; XXIII, 1 (1950), 16795.
38. Gov. Gomez Perez Dasmarinas, "Letter to the King; Manila, October 18, 1591,"
in Colin, op. cit., I, Bk. II, chap. xxiii, no. vii, p. 180, note.
39 Antonio de Morga, Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, annotated by Jose Rizal (Paris,
1890), chap, v, pp. 3637.
40. Colin, op. cit., I, Bk. I, chap. xxiii, no. IX, p. 209, note; Francisco Foradada, S.J.,
La Soberania de Espana en Filipinas (Barcelona, 1897), p. 73. A copy of this decree
(cedula) is found in Unitas (Manila), XXI, i(1948), 15759; and XXII, 3 (1949), 608
609.
41. Colin, op. cit.
42. Gov. Francisco Tello de Guzman, "Letter to the King; Manila, July 12,
1599," BRPI, X, 25355; also X, 287.
43. Original Document, Archivo General de Indias (Seville); Filipinas, 76; 68134.
Also Dominican Archives, Manila, MSS. Vol. LXX.
44. Archives of the Vicariate of Basco, MSS. Vol. I, pp. 2930.
45. Gov. Narciso de Claveria, "Letter No. 11; Manila, January 9, 1845," Filipinas
(18441845), Archives, Foreign Affairs Ministry (Madrid), Legajo 2957.
46. Gov. Fernando Primo de Rivera, "Memoria; Madrid, March 1, 1883," Archivo
Historico National (Madrid), Legato 5351, UltramarGobiernoFilipinas, folios 12931;
Overseas Minister, "Letter to GovernorGeneral Primo de Rivera; Madrid, April 20,
1881," Archive Historico Nacional (Madrid), Legajo 5246.
The Controversy Over Justification of Spanish Rule in the Philippines 20